God "Rejoices" over Abortions Says Episcopal Priestess

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pro_Life_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is an extract of what she said/wrote according to Episcopal Life on line.

*"God, unlike what the liturgy states, also rejoices that women facing unplanned pregnancies have the freedom to carefully choose the best option - birth, adoption or abortion - for themselves and their families. No woman makes this decision lightly or frivolously. But each needs the non-judgmental and non-coercive support of her faith community to make the best decision for her circumstances.
The wording of this liturgy focuses solely on guilt and sin instead of the grief and healing that may accompany a very difficult but appropriate decision to terminate a pregnancy. If anyone is paying attention at the General Convention, this rite should not be approved".
*

The Rev Nina, is clearly moving a little faster than some/most(?) of her fellow Episcopalians but I don’t doubt that she speaks for many (unfortunately). Some unfortunate people do make decisions, even very serious ones, lightly and frivolously. Why the Pro-Choice people insist that this is the only matter where this never happens always surprises me, what evidence do they have for this assertion? I have read of a married woman having an abortion because it would interfere with her ability to ski on a forthcoming holiday! That was frivolous, wasn’t it?
 
The Episcopal ecclesial community is a member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. There is no question where they stand.

There is a single female Episcopal priest that actually had an abortion *in seminary *and was still ordained. So, fornication and murder don’t’ preclude one from being ordained. I’m not sure they still believe in sin, actually. What a mess.

They led the way with approving artificial birth control. They have Bishops who have been divorced and remarried multiple times. Their presiding bishop disputes that Jesus is the only way to the Father - that is putting God into a very small box.

Don’t get upset by the original post. They are a liberal, post modern church.
 
bpbasilphx said:
Would God have rejoiced had she been aborted?
Click to expand...
(you mean the priestess?) Good point, Basil. Who was it that asked Joy Behar (from the View) to volunteer to be euthanized if she thought it was such a good deal?
 
This only reinforces what I already know about the Episcopal denomination…it’s purely diabolical. It possesses not the Holy Spirit but a sense of worldly libertine quasi-spiritualism. It’s morally bankrupt and has been for the better part of almost 40 years. One would need a lot of ink in his pen to write down all the sinful and foolish antics of this bunch, especially in the last ten years. They seem to think they can grow their ‘church’ by offering the parishoner a church with no such thing as sin and a feel-good koomaya atmosphere that looks Catholic. It looks Catholic but once you bite into it, you can taste the generic. For anyone thinking of the Episcopal Church, don’t touch it with a ten foot cattle prod!:mad:
 
This woman is possessed by the evil one. That is the only explanation for this statement.
 
Lets never forget that there are wonderful and believing Christian brothers in the Episcopal Church. Even though I think this woman is a lunatic, that doesn’t mean we can paint all of them with a evil paint brush.
 
PaulinVA said:
The Episcopal ecclesial community is a member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. There is no question where they stand.

There is a single female Episcopal priest that actually had an abortion *in seminary *and was still ordained. So, fornication and murder don’t’ preclude one from being ordained. I’m not sure they still believe in sin, actually. What a mess.

They led the way with approving artificial birth control. They have Bishops who have been divorced and remarried multiple times. Their presiding bishop disputes that Jesus is the only way to the Father - that is putting God into a very small box.

Don’t get upset by the original post. They are a liberal, post modern church.
Click to expand...
yes, but is it really any surprise? after all it was founded and flourished on sin, schism, heresy. women priests, openly homosexual clergy, pro-birth control, etc. shows what happens when one separates from HMC and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
 
It is impossible to take seriously a person who says the Author Of Life rejoices over death of innocent children merely months old.
 
hawkeye said:
This is satanic !
Click to expand...
Her words clearly dont line up with what Jesus said he came to do.

John 10:10
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

When Mother Theresa was asked her opinion on abortion she said … “Where there is a will, there is a way.”

She knew the truth of Jesus words because she lived them.

In the mouths of two witnesses let the truth be confirmed.
Case closed.
 
Dale M is right that the headline is deceptive at best. What she actually said is horrifying enough, distorting it to try to make it sound worse only undercuts the pro-life cause.

And calling her a “priestess” is just a provocation, not necessary to reporting the story.

This is a pattern for LifeSiteNews. They really ought to have a mandatory cooling off period before posting new stories. They often discredit themselves (and the rest of us pro-lifers) this way.
 
manualman said:
Dale M is right that the headline is deceptive at best. What she actually said is horrifying enough, distorting it to try to make it sound worse only undercuts the pro-life cause.

And calling her a “priestess” is just a provocation, not necessary to reporting the story.

This is a pattern for LifeSiteNews. They really ought to have a mandatory cooling off period before posting new stories. They often discredit themselves (and the rest of us pro-lifers) this way.
Click to expand...
Is she not a priestess?I for one am glad that Lifesite News does NOT take a politically correct bent on their reporting.Their bias(thank God)can be seen in their title.I have to laugh about pro-lifers being discredited in ANY way by this article.What a joke.😃
 
Honest criticism requires that one understand what one is criticizing. TEC odrains women as priests because they do not believe women have any substantial difference from men that would disqualify them from ordination. They are wrong, but that’s what they believe.

By describing her as a “priestess” the author is deliberately evoking an image of pagan practices in ancient times.

In answer to your question, NO, she is not a priestess. Nor is she a priest. She mistakenly believes herself to be a priest. Since she does not wish to be called a priestess and WE certainly do not believe that there IS any such thing as a priestess, why call her that? Answer: because it tears her down. It’s a cheap shot and totally unnecessary.

Cheap shots absolutely discredit those who make them, even when they have a legitimate point. Refraining from cheap shots is not being PC, it is being civilized.
 
In my opinion she IS a pagan.She IS a priestess.It is a perfect term as the can be no such thing.The use of the term IS deliberately pejorative.She does NOT deserve better.Stop bending over backwards in your efforts to be politically correct.
 
Soutane said:
In my opinion she IS a pagan.She IS a priestess.It is a perfect term as the can be no such thing.The use of the term IS deliberately pejorative.She does NOT deserve better.Stop bending over backwards in your efforts to be politically correct.
Click to expand...
Let’s at least follow standard English. The term “priestess” refers to an office which is in some way fundamentally different when held by a woman…which, in fact, cannot be held by a male. Like the word “mare”, the word “priestess” has a meaning in which the female aspect is fundamental.

Like the word “horse”, however, the word “priest” may refer to both genders or may be used to refer to the male exclusively. The word “priest” may refer either to an office held only by males–the Roman Catholic priesthood is an example–or which may be held by either women or men–which accurately describes the Episcopal priesthood, whether we like it or not. The word “priest” is correct for female Episocopal priests because there is no difference in rituals allotted to either men or women. Their church holds that the office is the same for either, so the word “priest” correctly describes either. You have to use the phrase “female priest” to make a distinction. If you wanted to express the opinion that the phrase “female priest” is an oxymoron, the phrase “so-called female priest” would be more accurate than “priestess”. Since we do not refer to males in their priesthood as “so-called”, even though we don’t hold that their priesthood is valid, though, the addition of “so-called” is unnecessary. They know how we view the validity of their sacraments. There is no need to rub it in. In contrast, the phrase “so-called female Roman Catholic priest” would probably be a very necessary distinction for us to make. Making that distinction would not necessarily be pejorative.

To refer to women “priestesses” after they have been given the pastoral office of priest by the Episcopal Church is a slap in the face not just to the women holding the office, but to the entire church. Like it or not, whether we think they deserve it or not, we are not allowed by charity to go around slapping others in the face in order to humiliate them.

The demands charity make on us are higher and more binding than any total honesty of expression that we may think our own opinions demand of us. We must keep our priorities straight.

We may not be deliberately pejorative without deliberately sinning. There is no getting around that. The real problems with political correctness do not change that.

PS The word “pagan” also has a real meaning. It is not synonymous with “heretic”. Anger does not give us carte blanche to butcher the language. Using the language incorrectly is not a good way to express anger, either, unless the intention is clearly in the direction of hyperbole. Again, charity bids us be careful, and to err on the side of caution. There may be a day when our words come back to condemn us.
 
manualman said:
Honest criticism requires that one understand what one is criticizing. TEC odrains women as priests because they do not believe women have any substantial difference from men that would disqualify them from ordination. They are wrong, but that’s what they believe.

By describing her as a “priestess” the author is deliberately evoking an image of pagan practices in ancient times.

In answer to your question, NO, she is not a priestess. Nor is she a priest. She mistakenly believes herself to be a priest. Since she does not wish to be called a priestess and WE certainly do not believe that there IS any such thing as a priestess, why call her that? Answer: because it tears her down. It’s a cheap shot and totally unnecessary.

Cheap shots absolutely discredit those who make them, even when they have a legitimate point. Refraining from cheap shots is not being PC, it is being civilized.
Click to expand...
I am afraid I have to disagree with you. “Priestess” is the feminine word for priest. It has nothing to do with paganism. One would never call a male pagan cleric a “priestess”. Language is important, do not let the crazy ones change the meaning of words.
 
EasterJoy said:
Let’s at least follow standard English. The term “priestess” refers to an office which is in some way fundamentally different when held by a woman…which, in fact, cannot be held by a male. Like the word “mare”, the word “priestess” has a meaning in which the female aspect is fundamental.

Like the word “horse”, however, the word “priest” may refer to both genders or may be used to refer to the male exclusively. The word “priest” may refer either to an office held only by males–the Roman Catholic priesthood is an example–or which may be held by either women or men–which accurately describes the Episcopal priesthood, whether we like it or not. The word “priest” is correct for female Episocopal priests because there is no difference in rituals allotted to either men or women. Their church holds that the office is the same for either, so the word “priest” correctly describes either. You have to use the phrase “female priest” to make a distinction. If you wanted to express the opinion that the phrase “female priest” is an oxymoron, the phrase “so-called female priest” would be more accurate than “priestess”. Since we do not refer to males in their priesthood as “so-called”, even though we don’t hold that their priesthood is valid, though, the addition of “so-called” is unnecessary. They know how we view the validity of their sacraments. There is no need to rub it in. In contrast, the phrase “so-called female Roman Catholic priest” would probably be a very necessary distinction for us to make. Making that distinction would not necessarily be pejorative.

To refer to women “priestesses” after they have been given the pastoral office of priest by the Episcopal Church is a slap in the face not just to the women holding the office, but to the entire church. Like it or not, whether we think they deserve it or not, we are not allowed by charity to go around slapping others in the face in order to humiliate them.

The demands charity make on us are higher and more binding than any total honesty of expression that we may think our own opinions demand of us. We must keep our priorities straight.

We may not be deliberately pejorative without deliberately sinning. There is no getting around that. The real problems with political correctness do not change that.

PS The word “pagan” also has a real meaning. It is not synonymous with “heretic”. Anger does not give us carte blanche to butcher the language. Using the language incorrectly is not a good way to express anger, either, unless the intention is clearly in the direction of hyperbole. Again, charity bids us be careful, and to err on the side of caution. There may be a day when our words come back to condemn us.
Click to expand...
Apparantly you don’t recognise hyperbole when you see it.:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top